I said relatively useless for a reason, and I stand by it. Relative is a qualifying term. I will rarely if ever need a Scott barrage but the SU-76 barrage (which I was comparing it to at the time) allows my TD to also fill an AI and Anti Blob role that the unit would otherwise be hopeless at.
The barrage is not usually worthwhile because it cannot track targets and unlike units alsuch as the Brumm the shells are not blasty enough to constitute proper area denial for moving infantry.
StuG E is perhaps a better comparison. The 76 is a TD with a circmstantially useful barrage, rather than the Scott's generally useless one.
See any difference?
The claim:
"Scott's barrage is generally useless one"
as I pointed is simply false, now pls move on.
As far as I am aware the only mortar this is even nearly true for is the T0 american, which was explicitly brought down from near AoE 1 to 0.75. They all still do 80 damage.
Allow me to make you aware of some changes then, because you are simply wrong:
May 2018
MORTAR CHANGES
A number of general changes have been applied to a number of light indirect-fire options to reduce their squad wipe potential, improve anti-garrison counterplay, and reduce their range in the late game.
• Damage to garrisoned squads increased from 0.25 to 0.5
• AOE near damage multiplier decreased from 1 to 0.85
• Veterancy barrage range bonuses replaced by barrage scatter reduction for the majority of light indirect fire options.
|
I stand by it being generally useless because the autofire is consistently more useful.
On rare occasions you may want to barrage an AT gun from outside its range, but the scatter at 80 range and the inability to track a target make it a minor inconvenience more than a major threat. Useful for buildings, not much else.
Than you I suggest you change your wording, since it that auto-fire that is too good and not the barrage that is bad. If in you opinion barrage UP compared to auto-fire saying "barrage is useless" does not convey that message...
I personally find the barrage better than TWP that Stug-E has.
The damage is a bit little higher than a mortar HT (Radius 1 vs. 1.35 lethal, 4 vs 6 dmage at far AoE, same splash radius).
No, it's not OP. Its not much harder to counter than the average mortar HT or LeiG and it arrives really, really late.
Check your stats the majority of mortar (if not all) have a kill radius 0. In addition Scott is able to hit moving targets while mortars can not, it is simply superior. |
...
If you want to see fewer P4s, buff the Ostwind. Give Ost a reason to want to build that over a P4. This'll also mean more Allied basic mediums, as the Ostwind doesn't have an edge against them.
Actually imo the best solution currently would be to move Stug -E to T3 so that OStheer get some indirect fire support.
Move Ostwind to T4 and buff it accordingly so Ostheer can afford to support Panther.
Make Brumbar super heavy similar to KV-2 so the unit can be balanced.
(as it was first suggested by Widerstreit, if not mistaken) |
Lethal Radius on the SU is 1.5, Lethal Radius on the Scott is 1.35.
Su-76 has a radius of 5 compared to the Scott's radius of 4.
SU-76 reloads faster.
However, much more importantly, the barrage is an AI upgrade to the SU-76's gun.
The barrage is an AI downgrade to the Scott, which can otherwise autofire at infantry as they move.
None of this is very important to the fact that the Scott compares very poorly to the SU-76 because they are a AT/AI unit respectively.
That does not justify you description of the Scott's barrage as "useless".
The barrage is inline with other units (better then mortars/min howizter ) and compared to SU-76 it can barrage on the move and provide smoke barrage. It useful in countering ATGs or static emplacement.
I would trade the TWP ability of the Stug-E for a barrage similar to the Scott any day.
Finally the unit is OP, it very hard to counter and does lots of damage. |
If it was absolutely wild like you mention it, it would have numerous of threads already opened on the forum about it. Does it? I mean there are more threads about the Scott than the Sherman by a large margin.
So I'm back to my point. Sherman IA is fine like any other Medium, in fact Medium tank IA performance is probably one of the best balanced thing in the game.
See my question from another angle if it is so hard to understand the way I expressed it first: What Stugs and Jpz4 are for if Pz4s are enough to deal with Shermans/Cromwell/T34.
You are missing a critical point here.
Ostheer can't really attack with stugs. They need to PzIV if they want to launch to attack in any form. USF do not need the Sherman to attack. |
My bad i didn't read far back enough. How do you think it should be adjusted? I assumed you were bringing up durability cause that was it
No problem.
Its rather difficult to tell. USF where designed to be a offensive faction but with the new changes to their tech tree they can be as nearly as defective as Ostheer while their pack howitzer, Scott, Major Arty/Reckon, MHT and Priest give them the edge over Ostheer in static play.
Imo has to rethink the USF design and the cost effectiveness of their units.
It my opinion that most allied issues come from their balance with OKW and buffing allies to compensate hearts Ostheer. This apply to the case of Scott also, which Ostheer have a really hard time countering. |
StuG E is perhaps a better comparison. The 76 is a TD with a circmstantially useful barrage, rather than the Scott's generally useless one.
Your theory is not support by numbers:
Scott has less scatter on barrage and does more damage.
It also does not cost MU.
|
|
Imo decreasing the effectiveness of the VG's flame grenade might be enough for the maxim. |
By we do you mean you?
PLS do not make this personal. Just read the first page and you can easily see who brought rocker launcher and MHT into this debate.
The Scott is great. But the last thing I would nerf is it's durability. Its range is the reason it's durable. Just lengthen the reload of auto-fire, and maybe increase it's on-the-move penalty
I did not say it need a nerf in its durability, I said that combination of damage output and durability is simply too high. The unit needs to be nerfed and I have made no suggestions on how so far. |
Scott is quite a unique niche unit. There are only two other units that are somewhat comparable to it. One is brummbar, the other is stug-e. Neither of these is less durable than a scott.
You can't compare durability of the scott to rocket trucks as it simply is not one. What it is is an ISG mounted on a light tank. That is why there isn't a single unit directly comparable to it.
I am glad that we got past the theories that is comparable to rocket arty and MHTs.
Compared to Brumbar and Stug-E it has turret, higher mobility, more range in auto-fire and more range in barrage from vet 0.
It might not have the armor or HP of Brumbar but it does not make it easy to kill, while costing less than half the fuel. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
